Archive for the Web2.0 Productivity Category

Tragic Event Today

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , on December 14, 2012 by Lance Strzok

Today we all heard of the tragedy of another mass gun shooting in a school. It is extremely sad, and many of us feel for those who have lost loved ones, and as a father of two beautiful teenagers, and another on the way, preventing this from happening again quickly comes to mind.

I am sure that the idea of controlling access to guns is one approach, however, it is my belief that criminals will always get a gun if they need it.

Another approach would be to make it a job requirement of school personnel to have access to, and be trained in basic gun use. Let’s face it, most teachers care about their students, and especially teachers of those young ones that can not defend themselves. I used to have a job with annual gun refresher training, and I believe that if more teachers had access to a gun in class if or when needed, along with regular training, when these moments take place I would prefer that some of them would have the opportunity to stand up to the violence and protect those that they teach and protect.

If I were a teacher, I would gladly accept that responsibility.

I understand that not all would, but in many of these cases, there are so few actual people involved, that a single person in the right place, at the right time with a weapon they know how to use – could end the violence quickly.

I don’t want to see a knee jerk response that makes getting guns into normal peoples hands harder, and I would be happy to see that energy spent on legislation encouraging our teachers to take on that responsibility.

Furthermore, not just teachers, but legislation that supports most competent people that would act – to be allowed to do so.

My heart goes out to the many that lost loved ones today in Connecticut. God bless, and you are in my prayers.

Advertisements

Podcast and Screencast Results / Justification

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , , , , , , on September 29, 2011 by Lance Strzok

So I looked over some stats with respect to the podcast and screencast work that I have been doing.

Why podcast and screencast?

Podcast – The driving factor on the podcast was primarily in understanding that there was a lot of command information coming in from across various channels. Newsletter, email, email, and announcements, internal portal, did I mention email? And to stay informed meant checking in a lot of places. The bulk of them were unclassified in nature, and could be aggregated in one location (the podcast). So why then a podcast? Part two of that question was a matter of time. Even if I knew where to look, how much time did I have to read the content of all that information? Once at work, time is usually somewhat limited, so in my quest for free time, I realized that my 1.4 hour commute was some time that I might consider sharing. As it is, I listen to a couple of stations, but for the most part, the weather, news, and market are quick, so I ended up listening to podcasts on technology and science. The point is that I gladly listened to more information because driving time was usually something I could and would easily share. Thinking this could be true for others, (average commute in DC per NPR news article is about 45 minutes each way every day), I wanted to see if people would get past the small technology barrier of getting the information from the network, onto a device that they could listen to in the car on the way to work or heading home. In this way, if we could aggregate the information for employees, and make it easy to access and listen to on time they have, they may choose to do so.

Screencast – The primary driver on the screencast was reusability. If there was a question or procedure that could be shared or demonstrated once, then people to use it to learn new skills, or be reminded of how to do it if they forget. I started to think of it as self help that people could get too before heading to the actual help desk. One of the reasons behind this was to reduce the number of classroom demonstrations I was doing, but also so I could spend my time making new content about plenty of other worthwhile topics and demonstrations. In addition to this, people could get it on demand, during their lunch break when they want to sit back in their chair and watch a “howto” video on “searching SharePoint” or one of several topics. I like to do this at home, watch a Youtube video on how to derive equations of motion while eating fried chicken. You get the point.

As for the results – just the numbers.

Over the time period of March to October;

I created roughly 21 podcasts with approximately 3445 downloads, and

I created roughly 45 screencasts, with a total of 3972 views.

On the surface, it is not apparent that I am getting the results I was looking for, and so I began to speculate about what some of the factors might be. This being driven by a recent question with regard to continuing to create them or not.

I have done a weekly podcast since about May of this year, and to date, across all the locations that I made it available, I think roughly 3200 downloads have been recorded. I have a few folks from time to time thank me for an article or two, but for the most part, those are the only numbers I can get.

I have been asking for more ideas/desired stories, in the emails that I send out with the weekly contents and to date, I have had only one person respond with a suggestion.

So what do I think were some of the challenges?

Marketing – When I asked people if they knew about it, if they were not on the weekly email list, then they did not. So I am not sure that they were being forwarded to anyone else beyond the people on the immediate list of recipients. I did not do any other marketing of my own, but in retrospect, I could have made fliers, and discussed the merits of how to effectively use it.

Accessibility – I think that having to have it on a network that required a user log in and password was a hurdle because many people just don’t want to create an account for what they view will be one benefit. Too many passwords already, and I can relate. A recommendation on this would be to grow our NIPRNET presence to allow for one log in that grants you access to email, and a few key services – one of which could be the aggregated weekly podcast.

Re-posted – I was asked to post it on a different network, and as soon as I did that, more people viewed it on the new network, but it totally defeated the premise for putting it on the original network in the first place.

Consistent – I think I lost some followership when I did not post for a week or another because I was on leave or unable to do so. This may have also been a factor.

Content – As much as I ask for ideas, I received only one in the 6 months I was making the podcasts. So the content was all original in terms of what I shared, discussed, or posted. Most of the content was stuff that employees would get in email and across disparate mechanisms, but aggregating it in the podcast seemed like a good idea.

Timing – I am not sure that our workforce today is as active in the media environment as we could be, or in my humble opinion, should be. There is also not a drive to move in that direction present, so there is only personal initiative or interest to explore alternative sharing mechanisms. Put another way, it is my belief that not many in our workforce use their smartphones to download and sync podcasts that they can listen to while they are at home. If we made this easier – it would help to demonstrate the value. I believe that over time, as more people get used to using the technology for information on demand, that this will change – but we’re just not there yet.

Now, all that being said, the question posed to me was – what kind of followership did I build up, and should this production effort be sustained?

I am afraid that I cannot answer that at this time. There is too little information to make a decision. I think the next question should be – do we market this from a leadership position, and present it as one way to aggregate information, with the option of those other mechanisms staying in place and simply using a unique identifier with those other items that would allow someone that chooses to listen to the podcast, to sort into a folder, those items that would normally end up in their input streams so that they don’t end up having to read or listen to them more than once.

As for content, the challenges that remain are getting people in those various channels of production to modify what they do only slightly to share what they are already doing, and minimize redundancy in information.

My recommendations:

With workforce input, develop a clear plan on what kind of content you want to aggregate, (added benefit of advertising this cooperatively developed product).

Host the content on the NIPRNET behind the same login as email to remove the need for separate login, and find ways to make syncing the content as easy as possible for both phone and desk/lap-top computers.

After aggregating it, tag the initial source location and products in a way that will allow people that choose to listen to the podcast to not have the information come again through the original channel – or if it does – can be auto-foldered into a location out of the workflow, (this is an effort to reduce duplication.

Revisit the content discussion on a quarterly basis, and make sure that there is a mechanism that is collocated with the download that allows for feedback and input (like – link to the podcast from a blog).

Try to get to more of an interview style podcast, not just a news podcast of someone reading the headlines. Different voices, debated views, etc… That will develop more interest and followership. In addition, if you have a section that reviews pertinent comments from the commenting mechanism – that will allow users to see how their input can effect the process and their voice can be heard.

I enjoyed the opportunity to run this experiment. I thank Jack Gumtow (CIO) for the opportunity to do this, and learn from it in doing so. I hope my sharing some of this information helps others, and I am open for questions or comments.

I would happily help anyone interested in starting or maintaining an effort similar to this one.

Cheers,

Lance Strzok

Journalists vs Analysts

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , , , , , , , on August 31, 2011 by Lance Strzok

I get the impression that a lot of analysts try to be journalists, and it got me thinking that maybe the road ahead is to actually make journalists within the IC.

How do analysts differ from journalists? The most obvious differences are level of knowledge on a subject, and objectivity. It is my beliefthat most analysts are pretty deep in tbrms of knowledge with respect to the subject matter they write on, and as human nature would have it, they are pretty attJched to their judgments on the things that they write about and don’t necessarily seek out others to collaborate with or open theclselves up to disagreement.

Journalists on the other hand, appear to me to be openly shallow in most subject areas that th~y write on when compared to analysts,but they seem more ethically bound to deliver balanced reporting on a subject after interviewing various analysts and SME’s for onions on the matter from various angles. In this way, the various sides of the story, and the drivers and stakeholders all get some kind of view represented in the report. (Want to highlight a little with respect tel differing motives and abilities here, depth of knowledge differences, motives differences, and objectivity or cognitive dissonance impacts as well as how each potential role might yield a different result).

So taking much of what I mention above as true, I ask, “what if the Ie had journalists that were directed to write reports, with deadlines, and had to find and interview analysts across the Ie, DoD, legal, state, local, academic, and others areas in order to more fully cover a topic? That would leave more emphasis properly placed on analysts to do their job of maintaining facts and forming and defending positions, rather then writing reports and adding to the noise. In addition to this, it would tend to have a positive influence on relationships between analysts an their willingness to collaborate when they start to see the influence that their argument held up, or not, who agreed with them, who did not and why. All these are good things in my mind and might alleviate some of the agency vs agency stuff that seems to eat away at the collective effort.
Now I believe that we have the tools to author joint products, like Living Intelligence, Intellipublia, and more, but how we would task this group of Ie level Journalists is another matter to consider. I am less certain about a common tasking system that would allow the head of the journalists to direct efforts against stories in a way that would meet intelligence requirements of all those that are submitting Intelligence requirements to different requirements processes. That being said, if we were going to make this group of journalists, then we could ptobably set up some folks that know how to direct this kind of activity and are familiar with the groups out there, and the general types of requirements that are needed such that they could direct journalists to meet them.

So in short, there would be analysts, sme’s and journalists. A directing mechanism for the journalists that takes input from key stakeholders, and a truly joint product that woul:d have the names of the analysts and agencies that contributed to them, thereby reducing the number of redundant reports that are created, and fostering the kind of collaboration and solid products that I believe we should be creating as a community.
I would think that creating this group and giving them the charter and responsibilities to do this job would be more likely than analysts all across the community getting reallylgood at collaborating and sharing in that way that we have hoped. Again, the difference in motivation and bias may be slowing or preventing the achievement of the environment we are trying to create.

Cheers!
Please let me know what you think.
Lance.

Some responses from another area are below.

(Reader 1) I read a lot of topical blogs written by journalists, and I have say for many of them, I hold their analysis in higher esteem
than much of what I read in finished intelligence. Now, journalists are just as capable of having biases, but most of
them state it up front, or you can tell it by whom they are writing for. I think professional journalists are better at writing a tight storyline, keeping to the narrative, and in many cases offer interesting insights that many others would miss.

(Reader 2) I have to respectfully disagree. Some contemporary journalists seem to publish opinion pieces under the heading of articles. I have seen instances that present as the journalist going into the process of reporting with their own agenda instead of being objective. In this age of computers and instant gratification it also seems in trying to reduce the reporting to the short time span it’s presented in, the message is often distorted or lost entirely. The dearth of print media and conglomeration of newspapers further reduces the impact of responsible journalism. I am not saying this is necessarily the fault of the journalist, it’s the just the system they are forced to operate within. Don’t get me wrong, there are responsible journalists out there but there are many sloppy ones as well.
So too is the analyst field. But this is a problem of our own making. For too many years the attitude of “knowledge is
power” and each agency’s artificial stovepiping discouraged the sharing of information. This attitude became ingrained
and as we all know it is hard to change as human nature, as well as corporate mindset attests. As a result the problem
becomes not so much as how to share but in finding out who is working on what. Reinventing the wheel became
commonplace,. Then too the lack of social media skills among the older generation of analysts further compounded the
porblem.
But programs like this blog for example s~gnal a change in direction. Education is the key. The newer analysts are more
comfortable using social media in their daily life so it translates easily into their analytical practices. Now it is a matter of
“advertising” who is doing what in the various agencies so that connections can be made between analysts. In addition, no
competent analyst should be producing arliyfinished intelligence without it being vetted. This is just common sense in my opinion. Are we going to have an opinio~? Yes. Are we going to possibly resent criticism? Again, yes. This is human
nature. I truly believe the vast majority0tanalysts today get the fact that producing for production’s sake is not
appropriate. We hopefully realize each intlividual is ultimately responsible for each and every call and their decision could ultimately affect the very lives of the indiliduals using it. I would hope they would do their very best and ensure it is the most accurate infonnationlanalysis possib e. Bottom line if you are putting your name to it, don’t you want to make sure you get it right?

(Reader 3) Interesting thoughts, Lance.
Reminds me of the mix between bloggers and what they call “Developer Advocates” or what not in the software world. As
this whole Internet-hosted, “cloud” and Iaas/Paas/Saas thing has taken off, there’s a lot more direct interaction between a
company and an individual delevoper.
So where you previously had tech Journalists reporting at magazines like Dr. Dobbs, and then tech bloggers like
TechCrunch, ReadWriteWeb, etc, you nor also have people working at cloud hosting companies that write articles or
screencasts on what their company provides.
I guess they are technically marketing/sales folks, but they are similar to a cross between a journalist and an analyst in that they might not be a SME, but they aren’t teallY just offering quick/shallow news articles, either.
Personally, from my limited viewpoint, I itill don’t really care for this idea of news-reporting style analysis, where an
article comes, goes and never gets update1 or pointed to again and that’s where LivingJntcJ really seems like a great idea.
But I can definitely see the need for someone who acts a a go-between for analysts who are too busy/too involved to sit
and chat it out with others every day, or ate naturally better at quiet thinking and research, versus interviewing or
collaborating across issues.
That’s why I dropped out of my own journalism ideals back in college – trying to get people to talk to me was a pain (and
scared me), whereas messing with a computer was a whole lot easier.

(Reader 4) +1 to james. Saying analysts need to be more like journalists in order to incorporate more balance is like saying chocolate needs to be more like vanilla in order to be more chocolatey.

(Reader 5) It is my belief that most analysts are pret deep in terms of knowledge with respect to the subject matte’ they write on” Man, I would love to work where you work.

Beyond Facebook’s “like” or Google’s “plus1” buttons

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , , , , , , on July 27, 2011 by Lance Strzok

There is some value in a like or plus1 button, it is easy and quick to indicate to others that you somehow agreed with the content, but it would certainly have more value to others, yourself, and potentially both Facebook and Google if you could have a pop up when you hover over the button, and select from a list of options what it is about the object that you want to categorize it with. Furthermore, if you hovered over one of the menu items, a final menu could come up with something similar to a Likert scale of 1-5 after each item (ie Agree 1=slightly agree, 3=agree, 5=definitely agree) & so on. (Thx Che)

Some ideas on the categories behind the “like or plus1” could be:

Agree

Disagree

Funny

Personal

Useful

Breaking

Spam

Check Facts (Thx Che)

Biased (Thx Che)

Having this option would help in categorizing content, and help others to understand why you hit the button in the first place. Although as (Jack) points out, not all things will warrant a comment, but it would be nice to be able to do so if you were so compelled.

Apparently Slashdot has done something similar to this, and it appears to have worked very well for them. (Thx Robert R.)

With that being said, what would you want to see as options to tag it with, and would you take that moment to do so?

Cheers!

It’s not about the tools or technology – It’s about the culture

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity, work with tags , , , , , on May 31, 2011 by Lance Strzok

DRAFT – asking for interaction and comments below – include your name with worthy comments and I’ll include your name in the contributing authors)

In pursuit of sincere and additive collaboration, we must understand what collaboration is, the value of achieving it, what factors effect it,  and how to set up conditions for a successful collaborative environment that are optimized for the product, and sustainable for the future.

Many of the conversations I have on getting people to adopt collaborative technologies are focused on improving the ease of use of a particular tool or service, how to link it to other tools, and improving how they interact with one another to put useful information in front of an end user.  It is believed that we will get more users to use it as a collaborative tool or service if it is more intuitive and fun.  We look at Facebook, and can talk about the numbers of users, ease of use, no users manual, and go on about its growth and the platform that it is for sharing information and maintaining situational awareness.  We labor under a false belief that if we could somehow make our tools and services that easy, than people would share more and collaborate more.  When in truth, we have been putting great collaborative tools and capabilities backed by leadership and guidance in front of our workforce for over a decade now and have only moderate gains in collaborative activity and the network effect to speak to.

Although amazing progress on tools and services have taken place, and are indeed important, I don’t believe that this is where the battle for the hearts and minds of our potential collaborators  is.  Rather, I believe that the value of collaboration, how much effort it takes, and the alignment of tools, services, and processes that optimize collaborative opportunities while simultaneously removing older systems and processes is essential to maximizing the various aspects of knowledge products.

This “build it and they will come” sentiment has taken us pretty far, but there is growing recognition that the tools and services alone are not getting us that much further down the path. Tool fatigue, and password overload as well as watching software come and go over the years has taken its toll on the willingness of the workforce to engage and learn new software tools to the point of people just saying – “No”. In addition to that, we have left the old, comfortable tools in place rather than burning the ship behind us, and forcing the use of new – uncomfortable,  processes and tools. This may well be another factor in why there has been only moderate gains over the last ten years in the methods and the numbers of collaboratively produced products.

Why do tools matter?

E-mail and client side authoring software like MS Word, are largely responsible for shaping our methods of collaborating to date, and they perpetuate an individualistic authoring environment and linear processes that are quite inefficient.  What is needed is to shift from tools that support very private, inefficient content creation that is linearly pushed through an editing model followed by a dissemination process, into tools and software that facilitate situational awareness of changes, and continuous engagement and monitoring options across the continuum of activity that is knowledge production, dissemination, and updating. One that is algorithmically involved with discovering, suggesting and notifying others with similar interests, responsibilities, or expertise, and helping to connect them.  In other words, implement processes and modify the existing suite of tools to enable personalization of an authoring / engagement environment that optimizes the desired collaborative activities that benefit the knowledge worker and the knowledge product.

What needs to change?

A sense of pride in what we can achieve over that of what any one individual can achieve on their own, and a stake in ownership of the knowledge products that bear our organizational name over that of a product that has any one individuals name.  A willingness to view all production from our workforce as something we are each individually accountable for, and that each item reflects our culture of excellence and is of the highest standards and quality.

Barriers to collaborative environment establishment?

Along with the modification of tools, processes and ownership in a brand, there is a longstanding perception of individual worth that is fostered by “putting people in a workplace and establishing incentives for competing, rather than sharing. We set up processes as barriers to creative thinking and learning along with policies that fail to accommodate how people actually work together” – (John B).  We also see individual names on knowledge products along side that of our organization, thereby crediting the product to the person, not the process or collaborative environment that has created a piece of work. This individual achievement is further encouraged by our organizational awards and recognition of individual efforts, many of which carry financial reward. This perpetuates the individual author over that of the community of interest authoring of knowledge products, and sends a clear signal to authors that is in opposition to the desired collaborative environment.

Recognition

It takes work

It takes time

It takes real thought, patience, courage and professionalism

Willingness to educate

Willingness to be honest

A sense of team

A firm understanding of and belief in the benefits of the collaborative process

It takes tools that support each of the above and are embedded in the process

Communications, incentives, training, and recognition need to convey and support the messages that support a collaborative environment

 

So what do we need to get comfortable with in order to optimize collaborative benefits and activities as individuals?

Collaboration, is not particularly easy, even in the best of environments where people are seated at the same table, given even footing to speak from, and with a common goal in mind for which their expertise has been selected. Yet, it bears good fruit, while improving understanding by all group members.  This isn’t what you would normally do, nor how you would normally do it, but you are going to go, and with good intention, represent the information you believe, and the viewpoints you have in the creation of a product that several people will be working on. You must be articulate and professional in arguing your viewpoint, or if during that professional discussion you change your view in light of new information, be willing to express how or why your viewpoint has changed. In the case where your view may not be represented, you should ensure that documentation of the fact of your discussion is incorporated into the record, so that others can see the viewpoints that are opposed were discussed, and remaining arguments are supported individually with sourcing.

In sitting down and chewing on Individual productivity and Team productivity, here is a list of things I am comparing:

Speed

Richness

Quality

Points of View

Agreements and Disagreements

Knowledge transfer

Signal to noise

Author/s

Outlier – repetitiveness

Quality vs experience

Chart of speed vs richness, quality, and number of collaborators

Contributing Authors: John Bordeaux,

Again, please feel free to share thoughts, this is a start, and will be finished in the next couple of days.

Thanks – Lance.

Why Screencasting?

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , , , , , , on April 13, 2011 by Lance Strzok

So, why do I spend time one this screencasting process and software?

First a word on what screencasting is – Basically, it is software that takes between 10 and 50 pictures of the screen per second while it records your voice as you demonstrate some activity on your computer. Then it can convert those pictures into something much like a movie with audio and you can share that movie with others. In general, it is a great way to explain and share how you do things with software or computers. Video in the form of a camcorder or phone video recorder generally requires more storage than screencasting software, but is usually better used for showing processes not involving a computer. You see a lot of Youtube videos that use actual video recordings to demonstrate how to do things with physical processes, and screencasts for things on computer screens. But as we do more and more with computers, it makes sense that screencasts will become more useful in this way.

I spend a fair amount of time sharing what I know with people I interact with. I like to help, and I like the look on people’s faces when the light bulb goes off and they see how they might want to use some particular piece of software for something they are working with, or alternatively, when they say that they have been trying to find something to do a certain task or make a process easier for them and I manage to show them something that meets their needs.

But I started to realize that sending me around to train everyone was not the answer, and that creating screencasts that demonstrate doing something and then sharing that screencast was repeatable, on demand, and frees up time for me to work on creating new content instead of spending all my time teaching the same processes and procedures over and over again. This expands to training in general. If it is done on a computer, than screencasting gets you a lot of bang for your buck.

Furthermore, if you have a help desk, or a place where people generally can ask for help or questions, you can post a link to the screencast that addresses that problem or question and you may have just averted a trouble call or spending man hours helping someone else understand a process that has already been documented and explained fairly well. Another really nice thing about screencasting out the functionality or process that some piece of software or several pieces of software can do is that even if I did happen to give the training to someone at some point in time, maybe they forgot, or needed a refresher. Also, it can be delivered on demand, from any time zone, without cutting into my time of creating more content and dicovering what else needs to be explained.

So it appeals to me in several ways, it captures an idea and makes it easy to share with lots of others, and it can be recalled on demand as well as freeing me up to do other meaningful work. It also fits the learning styles of a good number of people that are visual learners. People that like to see it done, and think about how they might use it to do something they need done. So over all, I think of  savings, time, and repeatability as good reasons to use this medium for software or computing activities that you want to share.

Enabling your workforce to create these videos and help each other learn how to do things that they do could prove to be an incredible force multiplier. Think of it as the “self help” desk. If you have one location where the videos are stored, and if you incentivise creating the videos by your employees, the ones that get voted up as most useful could be a real hit, and share best practices across the command. Not to mention you can categorize them and tag them so that when someone needs help with MS Excel, they can find the help they need in video form, or hit one of the chat rooms on the subject.

What do you need to make a sceencast? Well, a microphone and the software I posted about in my previous blog posts. Beyond that, you might want to make a screencast of how you use that software to allow your employees to come to understand it, although if you can create one that helps with the correct settings, beyond that it is fairly intuitive.

Like I mentioned earlier, after you enable them to create content, and a place to put it, then find a way to incentivise it a little so that people create content and share the things that make them so successful. If you hang the videos in an environment where people can vote and comment on videos, you could start to find the folks that really know how to convey knowledge and share. It also captures some of the corporate or tacit knowledge before it leaves the organization.

I have seen screencasting used to help launch software that you are going to start offering at work so that people can see it and comment on it before you actually launch it

Other common uses for screencasts are:

* Screencasts can help demonstrate and teach the use of software features

* Software developers can demonstrate their work

* Screencasts are helpful to submit along with reporting a bug  where the movie takes the place of a written explanation

* Show others how a task is accomplished in a specific software environment

Cost/Savings:

* Presentations can be captured and shared for those that could not attend the original lecture, saving the cost of travel and hotel costs and the time lost in getting too and from the event

*Considering the high cost of instructor, faculty led training, and most computer based training, screencasting is a good candidate for imparting high-quality knowledge at a low cost from a larger distribution of expertise across your organization

* Screencasts usually capture software better than a video being taken of the activity on a computer screen, and take up less storage as well as easier to stream and share later in a downloadable form

* Educators are embracing screencasts as another means of integrating technology into the curriculum as well as sharing what a student may have missed if they could not attend class, and it creates the potential for online courses on that topic or subject

Limitations:

* You can capture a screencast using hardware such as an RGB or DVI frame grabber card. This approach does not have the OpenGL limitations associated with several Microsoft based solutions

All in all, I see it as an effective and fairly inexpensive to provide a mechanism for creating and sharing process, content, and ideas on demand and with little overhead. That is the reason that I encourage any organization to enable their people with this software and hardware.

Cheers!

Major Changes to my Screencasting Process

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity on April 10, 2011 by Lance Strzok

OK, sorry about all the recent work, the old posts are still valid ways of screencasting, and depending on your platform and configuration, they may still be the best option.

But – Here is an alternative that I found to be easier.

Still uses Camstudio and the Lossless codec to make the avi file.

The process diverges there. New piece of software – Freemake Video Converter after downloading and installing the software, you then use this software to open the avi file you created with CamStudio, and then after it is imported, you can use the right hand button to edit the file and save it again as an avi.

After saving as an avi file, it is now the edited avi file.

You can convert it to mp4 to use locally, or upload the avi file to Youtube and then it will be of high quality, which you can turn around and then download the file as an mp4 that they convert it too.

Now your movie can be accessed from anywhere. For an example of this process, see this screencast.